Posted
by
timothy
on Saturday September 22, 2012 @10:30AM
from the tab-a-slots-b-through-q dept.

An anonymous reader writes with this news from Geek.com: "If you're planning to get a new Verizon iPhone 5, there might be a little bonus feature included that neither Apple nor Verizon are keen to admit. As units have started making it out of the stores, it appears that the Verizon version of the device is fully unlocked out of the box and able to connect to any GSM network. Verizon support is apparently confirming to customers that the device is unlocked. At the very least, this doesn't appear to be a mistake. It likely has to do with the way the iPhone's radios are designed along with the implementation of LTE on Verizon. This might make the device a little more palatable to those on the fence about upgrading, especially for anyone that travels."

The important difference between U.S. and Europe is that all the networks and phones use GSM. That lowers costs and promotes competition — hence the unlocked phones. When you can move your phone to any network, there's a big market for unlocked ones. With less competition here, carriers can get away with bundling and long-term contracts, which means locked-in phones.

Speaking of which Verizon's network is not GSM. So are these iPhones du

I'm not sure if you're from Europe yourself, or if you are, which country you're from. But there are at least a few countries in EU where locking a phone is prohibited by law and it may actually be an EU directive that prevents that. So in practice, I don't think I've heard of a locked phone now for quite a while.

On the second point, while roaming charges WERE in some cases prohibitively expensive, things are much better now and will continue to improve. Since 2007 there is regulation in effect that forces

The important difference between U.S. and Europe is that all the networks and phones use GSM. That lowers costs and promotes competition — hence the unlocked phones. When you can move your phone to any network, there's a big market for unlocked ones. With less competition here, carriers can get away with bundling and long-term contracts, which means locked-in phones.

Speaking of which Verizon's network is not GSM. So are these iPhones dual-network or what?

You didn't even read the summary, apparently.

TFS:

As units have started making it out of the stores, it appears that the Verizon version of the device is fully unlocked out of the box and able to connect to any GSM network.

So these are verision phones that are able to connect to any GSM network. So through the magic of logic, they are able to connect over verison's cdma and any GSM network. Doesn't that answer your question if they are dual network? Or was there a hidden question invisble to human eyes?

You're question didn't make any sense at all. It obviously supports both, and verizion has sold phones for both GSM and CDMA for a long time now. So It wasn't clear what on earth you were confused or excited about.

No, everyone else replied in the same way: TFS explained it pretty well. The only people who understood/understand your question are you and maybe other people who didn't respond.

I'm only replying as much because its just bizarre. I still have no idea what you question really was. my best guess is that it was a rhetorical exclamation of surprise after learning that verizon makes cdma/gsm phones, rather than an actual question.

You can "travel" quite a bit in the US and never leave the US, whereas a similar distance in Europe might consist of crossing the borders of many different countries. If every US state had a different cell company things might be different, but as it stands now you can go coast to coast with the same provider (including Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico).

Even if the borders you cross are usually only delimited with a road sign. Often included is also a low speed limit for a couple of hundreds of meters. The only "Europeans" that are used to border controls as a way of life seems to be Brits nowadays.

No, they don't, at least not in most European countries, which is why there are lots of sites that offer 'unlocking' services for specific operators. These include the UK, Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, etc.

Well, experience in Austria shows that atypical phones even on a contract are not locked. E.g. data centric phones before the iPhone where heavy duty geek stuff, hence sold in small numbers, hence even on contract the carries didn't bother to produce a locked batch.

A carrier would have little reason for locking a phone which was under contract. Why would they care? - they get paid whether it's actually used on their network or not. It would be pay-as-you-go phones which they'd want to restrict, assuming they're sold at subsidized prices.

Or do Euro carriers not subsidize phones and have contract early termination fees, as in the US? (in which case there would be no reason to lock them at all)

In Europe it is common for people to get contracts to just subsidise the phone, but not the data and calls. You often hear people saying "I've bought my high-end phone for 50 Euros", but then pay 20 Euros per month on 24 hour contract, and 40 cents/minute and 20c/SMS. So it is not like in the US that you only get a full package. You can also get full packages in Europe, but once again this is not the rule.

A more economical approach at the moment, at least in Germany, is to buy your own phone at full price

If you buy a phone with a subscription/contract, the yes, but if you buy one without a subscription/contract it's typically unlocked. At least that's the case in Denmark, where I've never had any problems buying an unlocked phone.

Of course, which makes it even funnier when I catch all my British friends over here saying "I'm traveling to Europe for my holidays". They don't even notice until some American expat like myself points this out...

If you're that bothered about updates for android, you can download and install it manually its no more fuss than getting the update when the manufacturers push it out the door. Besides, unless there is some game changing new feature you can't live without on the new version what's the point in updating anyway? The fool is the person who bases his choice of phone on bullshit.

I'm sorry your delicate sensibilities were offended by an article about the new iPhone on a tech site. My understanding is there are mechanisms available to filter out the news you are incapable of handling.

That has always been possible, you just have to pay the 'off contract' price which is $600-$1000 for an iphone. It is my understanding that these phone usually come unlocked (although make sure you confirm with the store before you pay for it...)

Exactly what I was thinking--does the iPhone 4 have a CDMA and GSM radio in it??
That'd be a boost to its already ridiculous market domination...and might make me consider one when my current Android gives up the ghost...

I'm fairly certain. The sim size is different from my iP4, so I can't test it (I'm not willing to chance damaging my old SIM just yet). However, this is an evolution from the "new" verizon iPad, which I did verify would connect with my AT&T GSM SIM just fine (and I used it for the remaining 20 days on my AT&T prepaid) as well as the Verizon LTE network. I was a bit disappointed that the iP5 couldn't do LTE for both V and AT&T bands, but having GSM fall back is nice for use where there is no CDM

Exactly what I was thinking--does the iPhone 4 have a CDMA and GSM radio in it?? That'd be a boost to its already ridiculous market domination...and might make me consider one when my current Android gives up the ghost...

Not the iPhone 4. There are two models of iPhone 4 - the GSM (Infineon chipset) and CDMA (Verizon iPhone 4 - Qualcomm chipset). The GSM part is not enabled on the Qualcomm chipset, so it's Verizon-only. (You can tell the difference by looking at the back - the Verizon one lacks all the regu

You can thank Google for pushing for Open Access [gpo.gov] rules during bidding for the spectrum:

"(e) Handset locking prohibited. No licensee may disable features on handsets it provides to customers, to the extent such features are compliant with the licensee's standards pursuant to paragraph (b)of this section, nor configure handsets it provides to prohibit use of such handsets on other providers' networks." [bold mine]

Verizon recently got smacked down [gigaom.com] according to these rules and had to permit tethering without a fee.

Right, but AT&T is doing LTE, just as VZW is, on different bands. Their "4G" HSPA+ rollout is much larger than their HSPA+ network, but eventually you'll probably see two pretty strong LTE networks. VZW just has a headstart.

Having the two biggest networks on the same technology is nice - someday, if they both do LTE only (and get rid of their legacy networks) then you could have a multi-band NA handset that you really could take between carriers.

Something doesn't make sense here. My understanding was that while the iPhone 4S had a universal radio (CDMA and GSM), there are different iPhone 5 models for different networks (CDMA and GSM). And while they all support LTE, they support different frequencies:

Where the iPhone 4S was a dual GSM/CDMA device, meaning one model for all carriers, the LTE-enabled iPhone 5 comes in two separate GSM models and one CDMA model. This means that consumers will have fewer choices when switching carriers, and that LTE access will be limited when traveling abroad.

Since carriers utilize different radio frequencies (also known as frequency bands) for LTE service, Apple has had to diversify its iPhone 5 portfolio. This largely has to do with the fact that 4G LTE is still in the early stages of development, compared to more mature networks like 2G and 3G. It’s a messy situation that Android handset makers like Samsung and HTC have been dealing with when it comes to their 4G LTE devices. For example, the Samsung Galaxy SIII comes in nine model variants, five of which are specific to North American carriers.

In layman’s terms, this means an iPhone 5 user who wanted to jump from, say, AT&T to Verizon or vice versa, would have to buy a new handset, since AT&T runs a GSM network and Verizon is CDMA. And where owners of GSM handsets previously enjoyed wide compatibility with foreign networks, LTE fragmentation means that AT&T customers using an iPhone 5 in Europe, for example, won’t be able to take advantage of LTE speeds while abroad and will instead get kicked down to the 3G network.

Is the Wired story incorrect? Is there more to this? Or is "able to connect to any GSM network" totally bogus?

More details here, including this blurb from Verizon:

UPDATE: Verizon got back to us, and said "Verizon Wireless plans to enable global LTE roaming on the iPhone 5 in the future. As there are many LTE frequencies currently being deployed around the world, Verizon will be surveying which markets line up best with the frequencies available in our version of the iPhone 5."

The CDMA phone, however, is more of a global device. It supports the same three LTE bands as the non-U.S. GSM phone, as well as the two main bands used by U.S. carriers Verizon and Sprint. Another benefit to the CDMA phone is that it supports GSM/EDGE radio frequencies, while the GSM phones do not support CDMA frequencies. Unfortunately, that GSM support is limited to international use for stateside customers. What is oddly missing from all three phones is LTE support for a large portion

There's a difference between "can support GSM and CDMA carriers" on the same phone which the iPhone 4S and 5 can do and "the carrier will not lock you to their network or lock you out of their network".

Why would Verizon care? The V phone won't work on almost any other network at LTE speeds, because the antenna/firmware hasn't been tuned to allow it to work on ATT bands. Your minimum contractual commitment is 24 months at $50+/mo, even for high end corporate clients, so $200+1200>>sales price, and if you go anywhere else with the phone you're not using their network so it's like free money.

FWIW, this is identical to the way Verizon iPads are provisioned. I can drop in a Verizon SIM or an AT&T SIM and it works with both carriers (though on the 3G/GSM network for AT&T). It's why I bought the Verizon iPad to begin with.

Of course, you'll have to go cut down a SIM to fit in the !@#@#^ microsim slot if you want to switch.

Odd bit of trivia: did you know that really big corporate clients get unlimited data on the iPhone (well, probably any phone) for $20/mo? Strange but true.

I find it strange that all phones sold on some plan and subsidised aren't unlocked. In theory having every phone unlocked simply increases the amount of money available to companies as consumers make rash decisions and take their service elsewhere.

I can't magically stop paying my telecom company if I wanted to switch. I would either need to keep paying the monthly rate or buy out the contract at some extortionate amount which covers the cost of the handset + many months worth of now unused calls.

did you know that really big corporate clients get unlimited data on the iPhone (well, probably any phone) for $20/mo? Strange but true.

No, I did not know that. But why not? If they have a big corporate contract, they're probably paying a crap load of money per month anyways of recurring revenue. Those are contracts you simply do not want to let go of. Unlimited data is just throwing them a bone.

You'd think so. Many "industry" groups have negotiated rates for their members, which are often small shops (1-8 phones), so the only advantage is one of marketing. My current deal is $27/mo per phone plus $20 for unlimited data. That's it - $47/mo. For that I get 200 minutes per phone on my plan in a pool (2 phones = 400 shared minutes, about what we use), 250 texts per phone (neither of us are teenagers), and - as mentioned - unlimited internet.

Sure they will. Call and ask for global-access or something like that. Assuming you've had the phone for more than 60 days, they will unlock it and you can use a SIM card in it to get GSM/3G access when outside the US - simple and easy. They do "claim" that you can't use the SIM card while in the US - that Verizon CDMA will take preference - this may be true - I didn't test it. I sounds like the iPnone5 doesn't have that (potential) limitation. I think the unlock is permanent, or mostly so, since when I upgraded my iPhone4S to IOS6, the first message to pop up on iTunes was 'congratulations, your phone is unlocked now.'

I did that and it is still locked from US GSM carriers. in fact many people online also have and posted articles about how the Verizon 4S works great in GSM outside the usa, but put in a USA carrier sim and it's "unsupported sim"

SO they refuse to unlock the iPhone 4S, a partial unlock is still not an unlock. And it still makes them scumbags for keeping my personal property hostage.

I read recently that the phones as shipped can choose a network, but can't be changed ofter. This is hardly unlocked. It is like the DVD drives that ship to play in any region, but once one is selected it is locked. It was also my understanding that the ATT phone would work with more international locations. I can't find the article right now, so I don't know if i recalling correctly.

That's a mostly accurate summary of the outwardly visible effects a nontechnical end user who only wants to "surf and talk" might see, but it doesn't quite describe the actual problem. If you know exactly what's going on behind the scenes, there ARE ways to do simultaneous voice + data on Sprint (though most of them require spending more money for thirdparty services and doing an end-run around Sprint itself).

Let's start with voice calls. If you want to terminate a voice call through Sprint, there's exactly

GSM networks went through the exact same hardware problem 10 years ago when they transitioned from TDMA-based GSM/GPRS/EDGE to WCDMA-based UMTS/HS(D|U)PA(+).

Hmm

My understanding was that UMTS has mostly the same protocol stack as GSM (with a new physical layer) so from the networks point of view there isn't much difference between a phone moving between 2G and 3G than there is with a phone moving between cells. Is that understanding wrong?